These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

[AFK Cloaking Solutions] Class System Scanner as Active Mod

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bland Inquisitor
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2014-05-27 19:28:22 UTC
personally, I don't run anoms. I make money elsewhere in null/wh space. I've hotdropped many people in the past, plan to continue to do so in the future. My point is, D-Scanning is normally the way to detect threats, because you can scan down sites while cloaked without probes there is nothing to assist anom runners in preventing a hotdrop.

You can call it being a coward all you like, nobody of sane mind would risk expensive (300-5b) ratting ships with 0% chance of avoiding a loss.
Willmahh
#22 - 2014-05-27 19:28:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Willmahh
SurrenderMonkey wrote:


Yes, it DOES seem like the complaint could be perfectly resolved by leaving cloaking entirely alone, and simply removing local, no?



that is exactly what i was saying.

that and HTFU. :)
Willmahh
#23 - 2014-05-27 19:30:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Willmahh
Bland Inquisitor wrote:
personally, I don't run anoms. I make money elsewhere in null/wh space. I've hotdropped many people in the past, plan to continue to do so in the future. My point is, D-Scanning is normally the way to detect threats, because you can scan down sites while cloaked without probes there is nothing to assist anom runners in preventing a hotdrop.

You can call it being a coward all you like, nobody of sane mind would risk expensive (300-5b) ratting ships with 0% chance of avoiding a loss.



so, you're saying people should be allowed to risk a (300-5b) ratting ship with no chance of loss?

EDIT: so how do you deal with this issue in a wormhole?
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2014-05-27 19:34:17 UTC
I have no problem with afk cloaking as the afk ship be definition cannot do anything to you (they are afk...).

Worried about that afk ship cloaked in your system? Pre-prepare a hotdrop response and bait them or jump system.

I would however quite like a destroyer module that allowed scanning for active cloaked vessels i.e. a cloaked ship that has any kind of module active or that is traveling hence creating some kind of energy signature to be tracked. However I think it would need to have at least 2 dessies hunting to provide triangulation on the target (one via the 'sonar' module, one providing additional data via remote 'sonar'). This should only work on ships actually doing something though. There is no way in hell anyone should ever be able to track down a silent running cloaked ship other than literally bumoing into it.

Oh and depth charges would be smart bombs in Eve :)
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2014-05-27 19:34:58 UTC
Oh look it's this thread again in which the following will happen.

1. Side one: AFK Cloaking is bad.
2. Side 2: No it's not, you're just terrible at Eve.
3. Side 1: No U!
4. Side 2: LOL NEWB, U R TEH SUXORS.

It's an argument that has never, in my 6 years of playing, come to any kind of resolution that doesn't devolve into children on a playground with their fingers in their ears.

We may as well debate gun control, abortion, or the death penalty. We'll get just as much accompolished.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Bland Inquisitor
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2014-05-27 19:35:04 UTC
Willmahh wrote:
Bland Inquisitor wrote:
personally, I don't run anoms. I make money elsewhere in null/wh space. I've hotdropped many people in the past, plan to continue to do so in the future. My point is, D-Scanning is normally the way to detect threats, because you can scan down sites while cloaked without probes there is nothing to assist anom runners in preventing a hotdrop.

You can call it being a coward all you like, nobody of sane mind would risk expensive (300-5b) ratting ships with 0% chance of avoiding a loss.



so, you're saying people should be allowed to risk a (300-5b) ratting ship with no chance of loss?


No, I'm saying there should be a risk. Not a guaranteed chance of death. The determining factor of loss isn't if they manage to catch you or not, its if they are active or not.

An easy solution would be to make it so that all forms of scanning be classed as running active modules, requiring you to be uncloaked.
Bland Inquisitor
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2014-05-27 19:36:41 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
Oh look it's this thread again in which the following will happen.

1. Side one: AFK Cloaking is bad.
2. Side 2: No it's not, you're just terrible at Eve.
3. Side 1: No U!
4. Side 2: LOL NEWB, U R TEH SUXORS.

It's an argument that has never, in my 6 years of playing, come to any kind of resolution that doesn't devolve into children on a playground with their fingers in their ears.

We may as well debate gun control, abortion, or the death penalty. We'll get just as much accompolished.


They are already looking to nerf combat scanning, I want this to also include the internal scanner.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#28 - 2014-05-27 19:37:59 UTC
Bland Inquisitor wrote:
Willmahh wrote:
Bland Inquisitor wrote:
personally, I don't run anoms. I make money elsewhere in null/wh space. I've hotdropped many people in the past, plan to continue to do so in the future. My point is, D-Scanning is normally the way to detect threats, because you can scan down sites while cloaked without probes there is nothing to assist anom runners in preventing a hotdrop.

You can call it being a coward all you like, nobody of sane mind would risk expensive (300-5b) ratting ships with 0% chance of avoiding a loss.



so, you're saying people should be allowed to risk a (300-5b) ratting ship with no chance of loss?


No, I'm saying there should be a risk. Not a guaranteed chance of death. The determining factor of loss isn't if they manage to catch you or not, its if they are active or not.

An easy solution would be to make it so that all forms of scanning be classed as running active modules, requiring you to be uncloaked.


I'm pretty much fine with solo carriers having a near-100% mortality rate. If anything, the fact that people do this only serves as evidence that they're not NEARLY in enough danger.


"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2014-05-27 19:39:02 UTC
Bland Inquisitor wrote:


They are already looking to nerf combat scanning, I want this to also include the internal scanner.


If it's a comprehensive rebalance that addresses both sides of the equation, that's fine. If it's a knee jerk reaction to the whining masses, then it will just end badly.

And by both sides I mean it needs to examine both cloaking AND the Instant Intelligence Network of Infalibility (AKA Local).

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Bland Inquisitor
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2014-05-27 19:43:13 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
Bland Inquisitor wrote:


They are already looking to nerf combat scanning, I want this to also include the internal scanner.


If it's a comprehensive rebalance that addresses both sides of the equation, that's fine. If it's a knee jerk reaction to the whining masses, then it will just end badly.

And by both sides I mean it needs to examine both cloaking AND the Instant Intelligence Network of Infalibility (AKA Local).


I'm all for the removal of local, However I also agree that combat scanning is a tad too easy and rolling the system scanner in as an active mod would be the better option to solving "the problem". Then we have a senario were both hunter and prey have a fighting chance.

To say that all carriers should die is plain stupid, You NEED a carrier to live in Null, why not allow it to double up as a ratting ship.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2014-05-27 19:50:27 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
Oh look it's this thread again in which the following will happen.

1. Side one: AFK Cloaking is bad.
2. Side 2: No it's not, you're just terrible at Eve.
3. Side 1: No U!
4. Side 2: LOL NEWB, U R TEH SUXORS.

It's an argument that has never, in my 6 years of playing, come to any kind of resolution that doesn't devolve into children on a playground with their fingers in their ears.

We may as well debate gun control, abortion, or the death penalty. We'll get just as much accompolished.


Maybe any AFK cloaking thread should only be active when the OP is ATK...
Bland Inquisitor
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2014-05-27 19:51:08 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
Oh look it's this thread again in which the following will happen.

1. Side one: AFK Cloaking is bad.
2. Side 2: No it's not, you're just terrible at Eve.
3. Side 1: No U!
4. Side 2: LOL NEWB, U R TEH SUXORS.

It's an argument that has never, in my 6 years of playing, come to any kind of resolution that doesn't devolve into children on a playground with their fingers in their ears.

We may as well debate gun control, abortion, or the death penalty. We'll get just as much accompolished.


Maybe any AFK cloaking thread should only be active when the OP is ATK...


That is not an issue with me, I'm always at keyboard :)
w3ak3stl1nk
Hedion University
#33 - 2014-05-27 19:57:58 UTC
Is null supposed to be safe? No risk high reward null sec? Null logic at its best here. AFK cloaking is just keeping people honest that pvp can happen.

Is that my two cents or yours?
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#34 - 2014-05-27 20:00:23 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Bland Inquisitor wrote:


They are already looking to nerf combat scanning, I want this to also include the internal scanner.


Yeah, let's just rework arbitrary (and ALREADY RECENTLY REWORKED) systems because stupid people can't be bothered to manage their own risk by not ratting in carriers. That makes sense.

Quote:
To say that all carriers should die is plain stupid, You NEED a carrier to live in Null, why not allow it to double up as a ratting ship.


Holy entitled whining, Batman! You don't NEED a carrier, and you certainly don't NEED to rat in one. These are not requirements. Plenty of players get by without the aid of a carrier every day.

It is allowed to double up as a ratting ship and, when it does so, it paints a nice big target on itself, which is exactly as it should be.

There's absolutely ZERO reason why ANY game mechanic should be changed to facilitate carrier ratting. You have the right to do stupid things. You do not have the right to have the game changed to take the edge off of your own stupidity, though.

Manage your own ******* risk like everyone else.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Bland Inquisitor
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2014-05-27 20:08:08 UTC
your focusing on a narrow tangent. Carrier, battleship,t3 or cruiser. They all encounter the exact same problem. Its not a risk reward argument if its not a risk, its suicide.

People just don't rat and wait for them to get bored. All I'm saying is, why allow someone who isn't at the keyboard so much influence over a larger number of players who are actually active?
Tek Handle
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#36 - 2014-05-27 20:10:25 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

There's also no reward for the AFK cloaker. Any reward incurred happens while he's actively playing the game and has to uncloak, thereby incurring the risk of being shot at.


This is bullshit and you know that. Cloaky camping the worthiest systems of an Nullsec entity is a common strategy to deny their income! So he or his party is of course being rewarded for being there w/o any risk.
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2014-05-27 20:13:56 UTC
Bland Inquisitor wrote:
your focusing on a narrow tangent. Carrier, battleship,t3 or cruiser. They all encounter the exact same problem. Its not a risk reward argument if its not a risk, its suicide.

People just don't rat and wait for them to get bored. All I'm saying is, why allow someone who isn't at the keyboard so much influence over a larger number of players who are actually active?


The person who is giving them that influence is you.

Set a trap. Arrange a counter hot drop. You could have your fellow carrier ratters help out.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#38 - 2014-05-27 20:17:18 UTC
Bland Inquisitor wrote:
your focusing on a narrow tangent. Carrier, battleship,t3 or cruiser. They all encounter the exact same problem. Its not a risk reward argument if its not a risk, its suicide.


Bull ****. On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everything that undocks eventually drops to 0. The only concern should be whether or not your isk-earning activities outpace your isk-losing activities.

Quote:
People just don't rat and wait for them to get bored. All I'm saying is, why allow someone who isn't at the keyboard so much influence over a larger number of players who are actually active?


Personal problems, again. If they're so risk averse that they simply can't bring themselves to rat with a cloaker in the system, too ******* bad. The influence is completely self-inflicted. Nobody is preventing them from ignoring the AFK cloaker. They're CHOOSING to treat ANY risk as if it were insurmountable.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Bland Inquisitor
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2014-05-27 20:18:32 UTC
I don't anom rat, a lot of my alliance members do. Its the basic income for most nullsec alliance gunts. The cloakly camper is an impact on income. Do rat and inevitably lose ships, don't rat and lose out on income.

End of the day, being able to warp on top of people without scanning them down makes it far too easy. Forget combat scanning being too easy, you don't even require scanning skills for this.
Willmahh
#40 - 2014-05-27 20:18:36 UTC
Eliminate local in NULL and you:

1. negate afk cloaking
2. negate tinfoil-hat ratters
3. create better SOV/NULL metagame
4. make sov holders actually post guards in their systems
5. negate threads like this
Previous page123Next page